A TrueOrigin FAQ

uring the years since this website was established, a number of common questions have peppered the feedback from readers. This document provides the answers to several of those questions in one place, sparing some readers from having to ask, sparing the webmaster from having to answer, and helping readers familiarize themselves with some of the site’s historical and philosophical background.

Q:

What individual(s), organization(s) or denomination(s) support TrueOrigin?

A:

No individuals, churches, denominations or organizations sponsor, fund or control this website other than its founder and webmaster, Tim Wallace. All expenses are paid for by Wallace. It is not a for-profit endeavor, and donations have never been actively solicited from any individuals or organizations. For accountability purposes, Tim regularly solicits and acts on the critical analysis of his fellow-creationists, as well as heeding insightful input from a number of non-creationists.

Q:

When was the TrueOrigin Archive website started and why?

A:

The site began in November 1997 with a single rebuttal (Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions About Evolution”), after a well-meaning relative suggested that a few TalkOrigins articles (including Mark Isaak’s “Five Misconceptions”) would clear up Tim’s “erroneous” thinking on the subject. The rebuttal was originally written to demonstrate (for that relative) the application of critical thinking skills and a measure of objectivity in the analysis of evolutionary dogma. It was then published as a web page in hopes of reaching a few other readers. (The relative only responded with silence.)

Q:

Why not just contribute to TalkOrigins instead of creating a whole new site?

A:

In spite of the TalkOrigins publishers’ pretense to be “exploring” the creation/evolution controversy (as if their “exploration” were characteristically balanced and objective), even a cursory examination of the TalkOrigins content reveals that the site is heavily biased in favor of the evolutionary belief system. There wasand isno evidence that material from a creationary perspective would meet with anything but the same out-of-hand rejection and/or the customary dismissive derision already poured out on the creationary viewpoint among TalkOrigins regulars. (This probably explains why there are no positive articles regarding creation science there, even though TalkOrigins was establish long before TrueOrigin.)

Q:

Why won’t you just admit that creationism is religion and evolution is science?

A:

Because it’s not true. Here’s why...

First, let’s use consistent terminology. “Creation ism” and “evolution ism” comprise a pair of opposing worldviews based on different ideologies. Evolutionism is based upon the foundation that only naturalistic and materialistic causes exist for not just life here on earth but the entire cosmos from the point of origin until now. Creationism is based upon the foundation that our world and the cosmos itself testifies to an active Creator, still involved with His creation. The words “creation” and “evolution”, on the other hand, represent the proposed processes by which things have come into existence, each in accordance with its respective worldview. It is an error in logic to describe the origins debate in terms of one side’s worldview versus the other side’s process (e.g., evolution v. creationism).

Second, let’s not pretend that one’s worldview or philosophical belief system does not constitute one’s “religion”no matter how little or how much it has to do with the supernatural in general or the Bible in particular. Regardless of any scientific corroboration, what many (if not most) of evolution’s proponents practice is the promotion of one worldview or philosophical belief system (i.e., religion) over and against another. Rarely content to discuss empirical science alone, they regularly advocate humanistic naturalism as a superior worldview or philosophical belief system to biblical creationism. It is therefore an act of self-deception to think that they are defending/advocating a position that is somehow “not religious” and/or strictly “scientific”.

Third, notwithstanding widespread popular ignorance (some of it apparently willful), a growing body of empirical science points out serious flaws in contemporary evolutionary thinking, while affirming the biblical creationary model. This hardly renders evolution “science” and creation “not science”. On the contrary, the scientific viability of evolution has been brought into question in recent years by an ever increasing number of highly qualified scientific professionals, not all of whom have been biblical creationists.

So perhaps a better question would be: Why won’t evolutionists admit that their ideological, philosophical, andyesreligious belief system has much at stake in the question of evolution’s scientific credibility, rather than falsely insisting that the debate is strictly between ‘science’ and ‘religion’?

Q:

Aren’t you being biased by favoring only one side?

A:

Yes! The important thing is that there is no pretense here that anything other than that is taking place. There are plenty of places on the web where the evolutionary model is articulated and staunchly defended. No one is demanding that they give “equal time” to a contrary position, and they have no obligation to do so. The same is true here: This website was established expressly for the purpose of giving voice to the creationary perspectivenot under a contrived pretext of “exploring” the debate, but to expose the faulty logic and false assumptions that comprise much of the popularly embraced evolutionary belief system, and to set forth a representative sampling from the abundance of empirical evidence interpretations supporting the creationary model.

Q:

What exactly are you trying to prove?

A:

First, we are NOT trying to prove God exists.

We ARE trying to do exactly what is stated at the outset on this site’s “home” page — which is to demonstrate that the NeoDarwinian Macroevolution belief system does not find “overwhelming” unequivocal support in the data of empirical science, and that the biblical creation model in fact finds compelling, corroborative support in the very same data that is available to and used by evolutionists.

Q:

Why does the TrueOrigin website only feature links to like-minded websites, when the TalkOrigins website has both evolutionary and creationary links?

A:

Featuring links to creationary sites renders the TalkOrigins website no more balanced or objective than does it’s pretense to be “exploring” the creation/evolution controversy. Both elements give the false appearance of balance and objectivity, whereas the TalkOrigins site delivers only blatantly pro-evolution and anti-creation content.

Moreover, while the evolutionary perspective is abundantly documented and easily found on the internet, the selection of links featured at the TrueOrigin site is intended to be consistent with the site’s plainly stated purpose (i.e., to give expression to the “other side”), which is in no way disguised for readers as anything else.

Q:

What qualifications does Tim Wallace have for addressing the origins issue?

A:

The first and foremost is a strong desire to knowand make knownthe truth, rather than propaganda put out by anyone on any side of this issue. The second is a brain, the effective use of which has been developed through years of reading and discussing both sides of this issue with parties from both sides.

[For those to whom educational/institutional credentials are important, most of the other contributors to this site provide an abundant supply.]

We receive a steady stream of correspondence comprised of varying measures of knee-jerk reactions, faulty logic, science-free pedantics, inflammatory invective, and long-winded platitudes — none of which constitute constructive, meaningful feedback. They are hurried (if not mindless) products of the ubiquitous “Send” button, from innumerable “creation-terminator” wannabes. The sender has seldom bothered to explore whether his/her question or comment may have already been addressed among the TrueOrigin site’s articles, the site’s existing Feedback, or among the plethora of informative resources here or (especially) here.

It is not our policy to provide a platform or forum for the collection and promulgation of such rubbish. We may occasionally engage in an exchange with an individual who appears to have unwittingly shown contempt for our common-sense guidelines, with a sincere and genuine interest in an exploratory dialogue (as opposed to a pendantic or hostile agenda). However, no one has a “right” to our time, bandwidth, or page content — especially if s/he is unwilling to exercise the self-discipline necessary for framing a well-researched, logically sound argument or question for consideration.

Q:

How do I make a monetary donation to the TrueOrigin Archive?

A:

We do not solicit contributions or donations. If you are interested in helping out with the costs of hosting and maintenance of the TrueOrigin Archive website, please contact us directly through the Feedback Page.